Pelosi's plan to stimulate the future – Remove it!

January 26, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Are you kidding me?, Health, Politics 

No doubt you’re already aware of Speaker Pelosi’s grand scheme to stimulate the economy–give hundreds of millions of dollars to family planning services.  Remove the children and you remove the burden to society.  It’s quite simple really, why isn’t anyone getting this?

In case you didn’t hear it from the horse’s mouth:

So where else can this go?

Like Michelle Malkin points out:

Up next: Emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education.

It should be noted that the disability community has thought about that for a long time now.  Michelle Malkin’s comment reminded me of this from the Ragged Edge Online Magazine:

Customer Service Representative: It is the law, Ralph. Assisted suicide procedures and methods are regulated by both federal and state governments. It is administered under END-A, the Early Need for Death Act that was passed by Congress in 2020. Since that time, unapproved suicides are illegal and punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Ralph: What’s the reason for that?

CSR: Unapproved suicides can be highly ineffective and often result in incomplete suicides. One incomplete suicide can leave a patient and his or her family with extremely high, long-term, health care costs. Ten years ago, Unregulated Incomplete Suicides (UIS) were threatening the viability of the entire Managed Universal Care System. On the other hand, Approved Assisted Suicide is the most cost-effective medical procedure in the history of health care. The Administration of END-A has now established best-practice guidelines and inexpensive toolkits that ensure an effective, safe suicide experience for about 98 percent of patients who are eligible for the procedure.

Ralph: Well, I have always tried to follow the advice of my personal physician.

CSR: Very wise, Ralph. Touchstone Healthcare encourages all eligible patients to use Approved Assisted Suicide. Most patients are highly satisfied with the outcome and benefit package. Oh, good, I see your doctor’s order is on my screen. Okay, I can move to the authorization process.

Ralph: How does that work?

CSR: I will ask you a series of questions. I will record your answers for privacy and compliance requirements. Ready?

Ralph: I guess so.

CSR: Okay. Ralph, state your name, date of birth, and patient account number.

Ralph: Ralph Craven. Date of birth was 06/27/1990. My account number is 2175-002-4569.

CSR: Ralph, what is your physician-approved END?

Ralph: What?

CSR: What is your Early Need for Death?

Ralph: I have Predicted Genetic Terminal Illness.

CSR: Has your physician explained what that means?

Ralph: Yes. It means that DNA tests have determined that I definitely will die from something within 20 to 30 years. It is not possible to predict what disease will cause my death, but the DNA predictive test results were conclusive. My doctor said the 20- to 30- year prognosis makes me eligible for Approved Assisted Suicide.

CSR: Ralph, did your physician explain the Suicide Benefit Package?

Ralph: Yes. In fact, the benefit package is what helped me make the decision to go with assisted suicide. The package is just too good to pass up.  My family will receive a Suicide Choice Rebate from the Touchstone Healthcare, and they will still collect my life insurance.

CSR: Right, Ralph. For most people it is a real win-win situation. Well, let me go ahead and email you the Patient Suicide Handbook and Toolkit. The Handbook describes the procedure and tells you how to prepare and what to expect from your assisted suicide. The Toolkit includes your choice of a lethal dose of Endal, or a reusable handgun. If you choose the handgun option, a family member must ship the gun back to Touchstone within thirty days or its cost will be deducted from your Suicide Choice Rebate. The Patient Suicide Handbook also is loaded with other practical information about crematoria and other resources that you might be interested in. Shall I ship your Handbook and Toolkit today?

Ralph: Okay. And I will take the Endal option.

CSR: Excellent choice, Ralph. Your Handbook and complete Assisted Suicide Toolkit will arrive by UPS within 24 hours.

Ralph: Thanks.

CSR: Is there anything else I can help you with today, Ralph?

Ralph: No thank you, Susan. You have been very helpful. I’m sure I will be quite satisfied.

There must be a grain of Joe Bidenesque patriotism in all of this!

UPDATE!

Pelosi pulls it out – so to speak.

The National Down Syndrome Congress (NDSC) condemns recent recommendations by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)

January 28, 2007 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Down syndrome, Health, News 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: David Tolleson
770/604-9500 January 23, 2007 ATLANTA – The National Down Syndrome Congress (NDSC) condemns recent recommendations by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) that convey tacit approval for terminating pregnancies where the fetus has Down syndrome.The recommendation for first trimester screening of all pregnant women is a change from the current practice of primarily screening women over age 35 who have a higher probability of having a baby with Down syndrome. Women under age 35 are also being screened, often without their full knowledge or consent.Among the concerns cited by the medical doctors comprising NDSC’s Professional Advisory Committee:

The primary medical reason for first trimester screening is to encourage earlier diagnostic testing in “at risk” pregnancies, in order to facilitate early terminations. Other reasons for prenatal diagnosis, such as hospital selection and delivery management, do not require first trimester testing.

Based on ACOG’s figures, the recommended screenings will produce numerous false positives, potentially leading to unnecessary patient distress and possible termination of pregnancies where medical concerns do not exist.

All screening or diagnostic tests need to be fully explained to patients, who should be provided the opportunity to decline or give their informed consent for testing. If patients decline certain tests, physicians and other medical personnel should respect the individual’s wishes and not overtly or covertly pressure patients to undergo undesired screenings.

Recent studies by Dr. Brian Skotko, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2005) and Pediatrics (2005) note that many doctors are inadequately prepared to deliver a diagnosis of Down syndrome, and often use negative language or out-of-date information. ACOG’s recommendations do not address this situation, nor how it will be corrected.

Studies have shown that parents and siblings of children with Down syndrome overwhelmingly report that having a family member with that diagnosis has been a good situation. Early intervention and inclusive education have led to largely positive outcomes for children with Down syndrome. It is unacceptable that many obstetricians present negatives — and seem to emphasize pregnancy termination — rather than reporting the facts, which paint a much more positive picture.

Parents who receive a diagnosis that their fetus has Down syndrome should have the opportunity to meet a family that includes a person with the syndrome, a move in keeping with the spirit of the Kennedy-Brownback bill.

NDSC Executive Director David Tolleson notes that “Down syndrome is a serious diagnosis; however we have seen families thrive.” “We empathize with obstetricians who fear ‘wrongful life’ lawsuits,” Tolleson adds, “but the cure for that problem is tort reform, not preventing the births of a whole class of people.”

Jeff Mattson, a man with Down syndrome, agrees: “People with Down syndrome want to live life to the fullest.”

According to Tolleson, “the NDSC is here to support doctors in delivering a diagnosis and parents through the pregnancy, birth and life of their child.”

I grabbed this from Barbara Curtis’ blog Mommy Life

See my post – The attack on kids with Down syndrome

The Attack on Kids With Down Syndrome

January 24, 2007 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Down syndrome, Health 

The theme of Monday’s 34th annual March for Life was, “Thou Shalt Protect the Equal Right to Life of Each Innocent Human in Existence at Fertilization – No Exception! No Compromise!” But a whole lot of people, more specifically 85% of those with a prenatal diagnosis, take exception and some will compromise their Judeo-Christian ideals to terminate a baby with Down syndrome.

Look for that 85% figure to rise. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is now recommending that ALL pregnant women (regardless of age) receive prenatal genetic testing and counseling.

Yes, it’s going to lead to more termination, but it’s going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, ‘How come I have to raise an infant with Down’s syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn’t have to?’” Dr. Andre Lalonde, the executive vice president of the SOGC, told the National Post.

To make it easier on everyone (but the baby), a non-invasive nuchal fold translucency test can be performed at 10 to 13 weeks of pregnancy, when a mom is barely showing, so no one has to know if she chooses to terminate.

Those whose results are most worrisome could then undergo a procedure called chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to confirm the diagnosis while still in the first trimester. Those whose results are less clear and are worried about the small risk of miscarriage posed by CVS can wait until the second trimester to undergo the quadruple test. If that is positive, they could then undergo amniocentesis, which also carries a small risk of miscarriage.

Women who would opt to terminate a pregnancy based on the results would be able to do so much earlier, when abortion is less risky and less traumatic, Malone said.

“By the time you’re 20 weeks pregnant, most women will be feeling fetal movement. We wouldn’t want to underestimate the psychological or emotional difficulty of undergoing pregnancy termination that late,” Malone said. “Also, at that point it’s easy to tell by looking at the woman if she is pregnant. This way she can make her decision in utmost privacy.”

Canada is recommending automatic amniocentesis for all women over 40:

The Canadian society of obstetricians and gynaecologists recommends that all women be “given” amniocentesis, and that women over 40 should “automatically be given” amniocentesis. One wonders what the word “automatically” means here. Is there a distinction between being given amniocentesis and being automatically given amniocentesis? If so, what is it? Whatever it is, you can be sure of the direction in which the eugenic screws are turning. (From Reflections on Faith and Culture Blog)

I may be reaching, but I truly believe that the push for earlier diagnosis and genetic prenatal testing for ALL women stems from John Edward’s attack on obstetricians using junk science exclaiming cerebral palsy is caused by malpractice during the birth process. Now lawyers are finding other conditions to blame on obstetricians and are filing wrongful life/birth suits on behalf of parents and children with issues like Down syndrome. Testing all women gives them the opportunity to remove less than perfect babies from their bodies and no reason to sue their ob/gyn.

After my son was born, I needed to find others who had children with Down syndrome. Among the famous were columnist, George Will, and actor, John McGinley.

George Will has always been one of my favorite columnists. Following is an excerpt from his most recent column in Newsweek. Follow the link to read the entire column.

Golly, What Did Jon Do?
By George F. Will
Newsweek

Jan. 29, 2007 issue – What did Jon Will and the more than 350,000 American citizens like him do to tick off the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? It seems to want to help eliminate from America almost all of a category of citizens, a category that includes Jon.

Born in 1972, Jon has Down syndrome. That is a congenital condition resulting from a chromosomal defect that causes varying degrees of mental retardation and some physical abnormalities, such as low muscle tone, small stature, a single crease across the center of the palms, flatness of the back of the head and an upward slant to the eyes (when Jon was born, Down syndrome people were still commonly called Mongoloids). There also is increased risk of congenital heart defects, childhood leukemia and Alzheimer’s disease. Down syndrome, although not common, is among the most common congenital anomalies—47.9 per 100,000 births (compared with 77.7 with cleft lips or palates, which also can be diagnosed in utero, and which sometimes result in abortions).

As women age, their risk of having a Down syndrome baby increases. It has become standard practice for women older than 35 years old to be offered genetic counseling and diagnostic testing. But because of the higher fertility rates of women under 35, such women have 80 percent of Down syndrome babies. So new ACOG guidelines recommend that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be offered such counseling and testing.The ACOG guidelines are formally neutral concerning what decisions parents should make on the basis of the information offered. But what is antiseptically called “screening” for Down syndrome is, much more often than not, a search-and-destroy mission: At least 85 percent of pregnancies in which Down syndrome is diagnosed are ended by abortions.

Medicine now has astonishing and multiplying abilities to treat problems of unborn children in utero, but it has no ability to do anything about Down syndrome (the result of an extra 21st chromosome). So diagnosing Down syndrome can have only the purpose of enabling—and, in a clinically neutral way, of encouraging—parents to choose to reject people like Jon as unworthy of life. And as more is learned about genetic components of other abnormalities, search-and-destroy missions will multiply.

Nothing—nothing—in the professional qualifications of obstetricians and gynecologists gives them standing to adopt policies that predictably will have, and seem intended to have, the effect of increasing abortions in the service of an especially repulsive manifestation of today’s entitlement mentality—every parent’s “right” to a perfect baby. Happily, that mentality is not yet universal: 214 American families are looking for Down syndrome children to adopt.

Read more here

I also urge you to read La Shawn Barber’s article, Baby Killing as a Civil Right. We come to the table of right to life with different, yet simlar, ideas:

Last October, Planned Parenthood joined the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an organization founded at the dawn of the modern civil rights movement. This isn’t news per se, but I thought it was a timely tidbit for today, the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that fashioned a Fourteenth Amendment “right to privacy” for women to kill their babies in utero.

Says conservative writer and friend Mychal Massie: “How can a civil rights group that claims to support underprivileged blacks embrace an organization created expressly to hasten the demise of black people? People of conscience should be appalled and outraged by this alignment.”

So is killing a newborn the same as abortion?

January 15, 2007 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Are you kidding me?, Prolife 

Kathrerine Ham posting at Michelle Malkin’s Blog
Hitt again: All the abortion lies fit to reprint

Blogger Gene Miller notices the British debut of Jack Hitt’s NYT magazine piece on El Salvadoran abortion law. It appeared in the Observer this Sunday with no corrections or clarifications of its false claims about Carmen Climaco.

Climaco appears, just as in the NYT piece, as a sympathetic figure serving 30 years for having an abortion at 18 weeks when, in fact, a court ruled that she had a full-term live birth, “and the official cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation.”

Follow the link to Michelle Malkin’s site to get all of the sordid details.